You can be sure there is a Spec Ops plan being formulated right now. The POS in those videos has a date with "one in the head - one in the heart" very soon.

rmolin73;1650081 wrote:So what's the plan?

Just nuking every country in the middle east. Haven't you been reading this thread? Doesn't matter if you are innocent, if you don't like us then you deserve to die!!

Rotinaj;1650086 wrote:Just nuking every country in the middle east. Haven't you been reading this thread? Doesn't matter if you are innocent, if you don't like us then you deserve to die!!

No, you don't use nukes but you do use strategic bombing to take them out. Yes, there will be collateral damage but they didn't seem to give a shit about that on 9/11. Obama doesn't have the sack to do this though since he's hoping they will get a stronger foothold.

Don't worry. Obama has a clear plan. At 8:00 this morning he said the aim is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. Then at 8:05, he said he wants to make it a "manageable problem."

TedSheckler;1650104 wrote:Don't worry. Obama has a clear plan. At 8:00 this morning he said the aim is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. Then at 8:05, he said he wants to make it a "manageable problem."

Plus he made his tee time at 8:20.

Did Biden just give a speech to almost start his candidacy?

thavoice;1650170 wrote:Did Biden just give a speech to almost start his candidacy?

Meh. He gave the same speech after Benghazi.

IS just released a video threatening Putin. I expect the problem to resolve itself shortly.

Yeah Putin will smoke these fuckers out and then send Barry an invoice.

I do get a little POd pmoney when the public gets all riled up by singular "atrocities" committed in the Mideast but we don't seem to give a fuck about the atrocities of human trafficking, female abuse, child pornography, white supremacy, etc, etc, etc here at home.

I also get amused at all the internet E - tough guys who want to go storming in there guns a blazin'. 99.9% of the people who say that would curl up in a fetal position and cry for their mommies if they were ever in a real fire fight.

NDC Falcons;1650313 wrote:I also get amused at all the internet E - tough guys who want to go storming in there guns a blazin'. 99.9% of the people who say that would curl up in a fetal position and cry for their mommies if they were ever in a real fire fight.

I will give you your first rep

Thanks Belly. USMC vet here.

NDC Falcons;1650351 wrote:Thanks Belly. USMC vet here.

Army Vietnam Disablity Retired ...

DeyDurkie5;1647145 wrote:Why? The military SERVES our country. They represent our country. We have every right to scream for war when it's justified.

Pick6;1647170 wrote:yeah apparently if you arent in the military you aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything related. How dare we expect the people whose income we pay for to do their job when it is necessary.

NDC Falcons;1650313 wrote:I also get amused at all the internet E - tough guys who want to go storming in there guns a blazin'. 99.9% of the people who say that would curl up in a fetal position and cry for their mommies if they were ever in a real fire fight.

NDC Falcons you'll just get responses like the two above.

Tiernan;1650311 wrote:I do get a little POd pmoney when the public gets all riled up by singular "atrocities" committed in the Mideast but we don't seem to give a fuck about the atrocities of human trafficking, female abuse, child pornography, white supremacy, etc, etc, etc here at home.

I wonder why? They're all over a riot in Ferguson, Missouri but everything you mentioned happens more frequently.

ptown_trojans_1;1649953 wrote:And then what?
We just leave another power vacuum?
Or, we create even more troubles and instability in the region?

If recent history has taught us anything, it is to really think long and hard about sending in large U.S. forces into the Middle East.

What should we do? I am not totally sure, but it should be some sort of drone/ SOCOM option and I do know large forces are not an option. The U.S. public, nor our military can sustain another large redeployment in the Middle East.

Sure we can.

Tiernan;1650083 wrote:You can be sure there is a Spec Ops plan being formulated right now. The POS in those videos has a date with "one in the head - one in the heart" very soon.

I'm sure SOCOM already has a plan in place, and like the failed attempt a few weeks ago, they are trying. But, the problem is there is a lack of actionable intelligence cause we have no intel on the ground.

BR1986FB;1650088 wrote:No, you don't use nukes but you do use strategic bombing to take them out. Yes, there will be collateral damage but they didn't seem to give a shit about that on 9/11. Obama doesn't have the sack to do this though since he's hoping they will get a stronger foothold.

Who the hell uses strategic bombing now a days?
No one has done that since the 1970s. That is not warfare and would create more problems than it would solve.

Tiernan;1650287 wrote:Yeah Putin will smoke these fuckers out and then send Barry an invoice.

You mean like he is doing in Ukraine with the same type of arguments which we do not like him doing?

thavoice;1650519 wrote:Sure we can.

How?
The DoD budget is already stretched, and oh yeah there is still sequestration.
So, if you are ok with the budget ballooning, go ahead.
Just do not complain when the debt climbs.

ptown_trojans_1;1650607 wrote:I'm sure SOCOM already has a plan in place, and like the failed attempt a few weeks ago, they are trying. But, the problem is there is a lack of actionable intelligence cause we have no intel on the ground.

Who the hell uses strategic bombing now a days?
No one has done that since the 1970s. That is not warfare and would create more problems than it would solve.


You mean like he is doing in Ukraine with the same type of arguments which we do not like him doing?


How?
The DoD budget is already stretched, and oh yeah there is still sequestration.
So, if you are ok with the budget ballooning, go ahead.
Just do not complain when the debt climbs.

Eh. I am not worried about the budget issues when it comes to war. The budget would be increased big time, and no...I wont complain, nor have I complained, about the debt climbing.
Many of the guys I know want to go on over there and fight. Many have signed up wanting to go and fight and are waiting their shot, and many that have are finding out the realism of a garrison Army sucks and want to go back overseas.

President Bush warned of all this in 2007.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/05/fox-news-host-airs-george-w-bushs-frighteningly-accurate-2007-warning-on-iraq/


It is unconscionable what obama has done.

QuakerOats;1650749 wrote:President Bush warned of all this in 2007.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/05/fox-news-host-airs-george-w-bushs-frighteningly-accurate-2007-warning-on-iraq/


It is unconscionable what obama has done.

Ugh.
You are totally forgetting the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush signed in 2008.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Check out page 20 there buddy.

ptown_trojans_1;1650778 wrote:Ugh.
You are totally forgetting the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush signed in 2008.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Check out page 20 there buddy.

Maybe you should review the entire document instead of taking one provision out of context. Article 27 is a good place to start, as are others.

Good luck.

ptown_trojans_1;1650778 wrote:Ugh.
You are totally forgetting the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush signed in 2008.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf

Check out page 20 there buddy.

You are correct.


President Bush signed that agreement.

It was done to kick the can down the road until a later date. At THAT time the UN security council mandate that occupation troops would have to leave by the end of 2008 so this was signed to push that date back until the end of 2011. It was signed to give more time for an extended agreement at a later date.

President Obama had his chance to negotiate a new SOFA with the Iraqi Parliament. He wanted to keep a few thousand troops there for training of Iraqi troops. There were negotiations going on with them and the big sticking point was immunity for US troops. Iraq didnt want to grant that, but the US wanted it. When talks initially bogged down most expected more negotiations as that is what happens. Neither side is going to give the other everything they want.
Instead of continuing to talk and negotiate, and maybe signing an extension or a whole new agreement, President Obama decided to 'take his ball and go home' when we didnt get what we wanted. His goal of keeping troops there for training purposes was also shot down due to Iraq not wanting to give US troops immunity from prosecution. (Immunity is common in SOFA agreements)

So, yes, President Bush did sign the agreement as a way to keep troops in Iraq for a few more years and withdraw at the end of 2011, but President Obama had his chance to negotiate with Iraq and it didnt work out.

QuakerOats;1650786 wrote:Maybe you should review the entire document instead of taking one provision out of context. Article 27 is a good place to start, as are others.

Good luck.

Just came to post this.

QuakerOats;1650786 wrote:Maybe you should review the entire document instead of taking one provision out of context. Article 27 is a good place to start, as are others.

Good luck.

Article 27 talks about what we are doing now, intervening, but it is much too late. That "JV" terrorist group quickly got their varsity letter and we were slow to respond.